2 hours ago, GoranM said:

The person responsible for the clouds, is the same person who gave Asobo the information on how to make the clouds and lighting look more realistic in MSFS 2020, and his efforts were applauded by many in these very forums.  And he did it...for free.

 

If you're talking about Biology, he indeed did find the errors in the core calculations of the lighting engines of both XP and MSFS 2020, given they were both based on the same paper (which had the flaws to begin with). From what I recall, he provided better coefficients for the formulae used. Definitely kudos to him.

But 2024 uses a completely revamped atmospheric photometric lighting engine which is better than even that "fixed" 2020 lighting.

And oh, Biology did not do anything with MS/Asobo on clouds, or making of, or clouds definition/structure/etc. He just focused on the environmental lighting.

 

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by lwt1971

48 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

The road traffic looks more realistic in that XP12 video than it does in MSFS 2020. To be honest, I never use default road traffic in MSFS 2020 (or any other previous version of Microsoft Flight Simulator), because I think that it looks rubbish.

What do you use?

16 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Immaterial.

Or, actually, more to the point.

NEITHER is a representative sample for flight simmer market trends, and for entirely different reasons.

Again: "...Lies, Damned Lies, ...and Statistics."

so your point is, the metrics from the primary two places you can buy MSFS are not representitive of it's popularity?

it's a hot take for sure

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by EGLD

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

 

If you're talking about Biology, he indeed did find the errors in the core calculations of the lighting engines of both XP and MSFS 2020, given they were both based on the same paper (which had the flaws to begin with). From what I recall, he provided better coefficients for the formulae used. Definitely kudos to him.

But 2024 uses a completely revamped atmospheric photometric lighting engine which is better than even that "fixed" 2020 lighting.

And oh, Biology did not do anything with MS/Asobo on clouds, or making of, or clouds definition/structure/etc. He just focused on the environmental lighting.

 

Maya/Biology/Faruk uses real world physics to get the lighting and the clouds to look right.  We had a lengthy discussion about it last night, among other things relating to MSFS which was brought up in this very thread, specifically centred around its future (which he and I both agreed would be detrimental to the flight sim community) and he said he prefers to let real world physics to do the heavy lifting, rather than creating something that could be interpreted as "visually appealing".  If Asobo has messed with his work for 2024, then they have changed it to something that is not using real world physics.

If you or anyone else think it looks better now than it did, then you prefer something that is manufactured using visually pleasing elements, and not something that is rooted in real world physics.  Of course, it's down to individual tastes, but there are many of us who prefer visuals rooted in real world scenarios, and not something manufactured, just because it "looks cool".

For the record, I have no idea what Asobo are using for 2024, as I don't have it, and don't plan to get it for the time being.  So my thoughts on the clouds and lighting are based on what you have said, only.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by GoranM

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Maya/Biology/Faruk uses real world physics to get the lighting and the clouds to look right.  We had a lengthy discussion about it last night, among other things relating to MSFS which was brought up in this very thread, specifically centred around its future (which he and I both agreed would be detrimental to the flight sim community) and he said he prefers to let real world physics to do the heavy lifting, rather than creating something that could be interpreted as "visually appealing".  If Asobo has messed with his work for 2024, then they have changed it to something that is not using real world physics.

If you or anyone else think it looks better now than it did, then you prefer something that is manufactured using visually pleasing elements, and not something that is rooted in real world physics.  Of course, it's down to individual tastes, but there are many of us who prefer visuals rooted in real world scenarios, and not something manufactured, just because it "looks cool".

 

And how do you or he know how the 2024 lighting engine works given that it is completely new compared to the 2020 one? We all prefer real physics to do the heavy lifting, and indeed MS/Asobo does too since the new lighting engine in 2024 is photometric. They didn't "mess" with his work.. what he suggested for 2020's lighting engine was different coefficients to use for the formulae being used in that engine, but 2024's lighting engine is completely different as was explained by Seb and team.

And yes, myself and a quite a few 2024 adopters feel its lighting is better and realistic, and we prefer visuals rooted in real world scenarios too, rather than "manufactured" or "looking cool" (but nice attempt at speaking for us). Your claim that MSFS 2024's lighting engine is not physics based seems to have about the same merit and credibility as your claim that Biology helped MS/Asobo with clouds.

 

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

 

And how do you or he know how the 2024 lighting engine works given that it is completely new compared to the 2020 one? We all prefer real physics to do the heavy lifting, and indeed MS/Asobo does too since the new lighting engine in 2024 is photometric. They didn't "mess" with his work.. what he suggested for 2020's lighting engine was different coefficients to use for the formulae being used in that engine, but 2024's lighting engine is completely different as was explained by Seb and team.

And yes, myself and a quite a few 2024 adopters feel its lighting is better and realistic, and we prefer visuals rooted in real world scenarios too, rather than "manufactured" or "looking cool" (but nice attempt at speaking for us). Your claim that MSFS 2024's lighting engine is not physics based seems to have about the same merit and credibility as your claim that Biology helped MS/Asobo with clouds.

 

Well, I started reading your post, and thought to myself, "He's being quite civil", and started formulating a response in my head.  Then you started going down that toxic road by misquoting me, and then questioning my merit.  It was a pleasant discussion in the last few posts, and I was very optimistic about my interactions with several people.  It's a shame you still harbor some kind of resentment towards people that simply don't agree with you.  What a shame.

2 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Well, I started reading your post, and thought to myself, "He's being quite civil", and started formulating a response in my head.  Then you started going down that toxic road by misquoting me, and then questioning my merit.  It was a pleasant discussion in the last few posts, and I was very optimistic about my interactions with several people.  It's a shame you still harbor some kind of resentment towards people that simply don't agree with you.  What a shame.

Ok, umm sure? Not sure how you landed on "toxic misquoting" given that I directly quoted and spoke to what you said (and claimed about 2024), and then you take the hyperbole further by claiming I have resentments, etc 🙂 anyhow, you do you.

 

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Not sure how you landed on "toxic misquoting" given that I directly quoted and spoke to what you said (and claimed about 2024)

Umm, really?

I said many people want realism.  The flip side of that is many people want "cool stuff" that isn't realistic.  Varying tastes, Len.  If you want to twist that into "speaking for you", that's not even remotely close to what I meant, and I have no idea how you arrived at that when what I said is true.  People have varying tastes.  It has nothing to do with speaking for people.  It has to do with observation.

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

and then you take the hyperbole further by claiming I have resentments,

You have a very skewed way of showing otherwise.  Based on my interactions with you, specifically, I cant see us sitting down having a beer together.  Something I've done with other flight simmers in past expo's.  From both MSFS and X-Plane.

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

anyhow, you do you.

Yep, you too.

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by GoranM

2 hours ago, Ixoye said:

I have to say that X-Plane 12 looks significantly better than I thought it would do, and the life like atmosphere...WOW! it is years ahead of MFSF.

Austin’s team have skills, no doubt. MSFS and FS24 have raised the bar considerably, by i wouldn’t count LR out. 

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The road traffic looks more realistic in that XP12 video than it does in MSFS 2020. To be honest, I never use default road traffic in MSFS 2020 (or any other previous version of Microsoft Flight Simulator), because I think that it looks rubbish.

Exactly. I was watching road traffic for a while and noticed some cars taking the offramp while others were driving straight. It was way more realistic than the mindless traffic in FS. ATC is another area where default XP is just way better. 

1 minute ago, GoranM said:

Umm, really?

I said many people want realism.  The flip side of that is many people want "cool stuff" that isn't realistic.  Varying tastes, Len.  If you want to twist that into "speaking for you", that's not even remotely close to what I meant, and I have no idea how you arrived at that when what I said is true.

Well, I perhaps arrived at that given what you posted, i.e: 

"If you or anyone else think it looks better now than it did, then you prefer something that is manufactured using visually pleasing elements, and not something that is rooted in real world physics. "

I didn't really have to twist anything there.

Re: not having beers with me.. ok, umm sure?

 

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

Re: not having beers with me.. ok, umm sure?

I can't believe you actually took that literally.

The trend is your friend. Navigraph survey now supports what we are seeing on steam. And let’s be clear, the navigraph survey included our console friends too. 

https://navigraph.com/blog/survey-2024?utm_source=discord&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=survey-2024

Edited April 16, 20251 yr by Keirtt

5 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

Navigraph survey now supports what we are seeing on steam. And let’s be clear, the navigraph survey included our console friends too. 

That's about what I would have figured, honestly. Until more planes get ported over 2020 is going to rule for a lot of people. If you fly the PMDG 737 the most, you are going to be in 2020 for a long while.

I think next year's survey is going to show a sharp increase in 2024.

5 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

The trend is your friend. Navigraph survey now supports what we are seeing on steam. And let’s be clear, the navigraph survey included our console friends too. 

 

https://navigraph.com/blog/survey-2024?utm_source=discord&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=survey-2024

Definitely not encouraging to see a successor do worse than the predecessor.  I do hope 2024's popularity increases to surpass 2020 numbers.  

Just now, GoranM said:

I can't believe you actually took that literally.

No, I didn't 🙂 ... But you keep doing you.